Merge branch 'for-mingo' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel…

…/git/paulmck/linux-rcu into core/rcu

Pull RCU changes from Paul E. McKenney:

  - Initialization/Kconfig updates: hide most Kconfig options from unsuspecting users.
    There's now a single high level configuration option:

      *
      * RCU Subsystem
      *
      Make expert-level adjustments to RCU configuration (RCU_EXPERT) [N/y/?] (NEW)

    Which if answered in the negative, leaves us with a single interactive
    configuration option:

      Offload RCU callback processing from boot-selected CPUs (RCU_NOCB_CPU) [N/y/?] (NEW)

    All the rest of the RCU options are configured automatically.

  - Remove all uses of RCU-protected array indexes: replace the
    rcu_[access|dereference]_index_check() APIs with READ_ONCE() and rcu_lockdep_assert().

  - RCU CPU-hotplug cleanups.

  - Updates to Tiny RCU: a race fix and further code shrinkage.

  - RCU torture-testing updates: fixes, speedups, cleanups and
    documentation updates.

  - Miscellaneous fixes.

  - Documentation updates.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

Documentation/RCU/arrayRCU.txt

@@ -10,7 +10,19 @@ also be used to protect arrays.  Three situations are as follows:
 
 3.  Resizeable Arrays
 
-Each of these situations are discussed below.
+Each of these three situations involves an RCU-protected pointer to an
+array that is separately indexed.  It might be tempting to consider use
+of RCU to instead protect the index into an array, however, this use
+case is -not- supported.  The problem with RCU-protected indexes into
+arrays is that compilers can play way too many optimization games with
+integers, which means that the rules governing handling of these indexes
+are far more trouble than they are worth.  If RCU-protected indexes into
+arrays prove to be particularly valuable (which they have not thus far),
+explicit cooperation from the compiler will be required to permit them
+to be safely used.
+
+That aside, each of the three RCU-protected pointer situations are
+described in the following sections.
 
 
 Situation 1: Hash Tables
@@ -36,9 +48,9 @@ Quick Quiz:  Why is it so important that updates be rare when
 Situation 3: Resizeable Arrays
 
 Use of RCU for resizeable arrays is demonstrated by the grow_ary()
-function used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used to map from
-semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data structure
-that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary()
+function formerly used by the System V IPC code.  The array is used
+to map from semaphore, message-queue, and shared-memory IDs to the data
+structure that represents the corresponding IPC construct.  The grow_ary()
 function does not acquire any locks; instead its caller must hold the
 ids->sem semaphore.
 

Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt

@@ -47,11 +47,6 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives:
 		Use explicit check expression "c" along with
 		srcu_read_lock_held()().  This is useful in code that
 		is invoked by both SRCU readers and updaters.
-	rcu_dereference_index_check(p, c):
-		Use explicit check expression "c", but the caller
-		must supply one of the rcu_read_lock_held() functions.
-		This is useful in code that uses RCU-protected arrays
-		that is invoked by both RCU readers and updaters.
 	rcu_dereference_raw(p):
 		Don't check.  (Use sparingly, if at all.)
 	rcu_dereference_protected(p, c):
@@ -64,11 +59,6 @@ checking of rcu_dereference() primitives:
 		but retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
 		or coalescsing.  This is useful when when testing the
 		value of the pointer itself, for example, against NULL.
-	rcu_access_index(idx):
-		Return the value of the index and omit all barriers, but
-		retain the compiler constraints that prevent duplicating
-		or coalescsing.  This is useful when when testing the
-		value of the index itself, for example, against -1.
 
 The rcu_dereference_check() check expression can be any boolean
 expression, but would normally include a lockdep expression.  However,

Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt

@@ -25,17 +25,6 @@ o	You must use one of the rcu_dereference() family of primitives
 	for an example where the compiler can in fact deduce the exact
 	value of the pointer, and thus cause misordering.
 
-o	Do not use single-element RCU-protected arrays.  The compiler
-	is within its right to assume that the value of an index into
-	such an array must necessarily evaluate to zero.  The compiler
-	could then substitute the constant zero for the computation, so
-	that the array index no longer depended on the value returned
-	by rcu_dereference().  If the array index no longer depends
-	on rcu_dereference(), then both the compiler and the CPU
-	are within their rights to order the array access before the
-	rcu_dereference(), which can cause the array access to return
-	garbage.
-
 o	Avoid cancellation when using the "+" and "-" infix arithmetic
 	operators.  For example, for a given variable "x", avoid
 	"(x-x)".  There are similar arithmetic pitfalls from other
@@ -76,14 +65,15 @@ o	Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
 	dereferencing.	For example, the following (rather improbable)
 	code is buggy:
 
-		int a[2];
-		int index;
-		int force_zero_index = 1;
+		int *p;
+		int *q;
 
 		...
 
-		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
-		r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
+		p = rcu_dereference(gp)
+		q = &global_q;
+		q += p != &oom_p1 && p != &oom_p2;
+		r1 = *q;  /* BUGGY!!! */
 
 	The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled
 	using branches.  While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC
@@ -94,14 +84,15 @@ o	Do not use the results from relational operators ("==", "!=",
 	">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing.  For example,
 	the following (quite strange) code is buggy:
 
-		int a[2];
-		int index;
-		int flip_index = 0;
+		int *p;
+		int *q;
 
 		...
 
-		r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
-		r2 = a[r1 != flip_index];  /* BUGGY!!! */
+		p = rcu_dereference(gp)
+		q = &global_q;
+		q += p > &oom_p;
+		r1 = *q;  /* BUGGY!!! */
 
 	As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators
 	are often compiled using branches.  And as before, although
@@ -193,6 +184,11 @@ o	Be very careful about comparing pointers obtained from
 		pointer.  Note that the volatile cast in rcu_dereference()
 		will normally prevent the compiler from knowing too much.
 
+		However, please note that if the compiler knows that the
+		pointer takes on only one of two values, a not-equal
+		comparison will provide exactly the information that the
+		compiler needs to deduce the value of the pointer.
+
 o	Disable any value-speculation optimizations that your compiler
 	might provide, especially if you are making use of feedback-based
 	optimizations that take data collected from prior runs.  Such

Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt

@@ -256,7 +256,9 @@ rcu_dereference()
 	If you are going to be fetching multiple fields from the
 	RCU-protected structure, using the local variable is of
 	course preferred.  Repeated rcu_dereference() calls look
-	ugly and incur unnecessary overhead on Alpha CPUs.
+	ugly, do not guarantee that the same pointer will be returned
+	if an update happened while in the critical section, and incur
+	unnecessary overhead on Alpha CPUs.
 
 	Note that the value returned by rcu_dereference() is valid
 	only within the enclosing RCU read-side critical section.
@@ -879,9 +881,7 @@ SRCU:	Initialization/cleanup
 
 All:  lockdep-checked RCU-protected pointer access
 
-	rcu_access_index
 	rcu_access_pointer
-	rcu_dereference_index_check
 	rcu_dereference_raw
 	rcu_lockdep_assert
 	rcu_sleep_check

Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt

@@ -2992,11 +2992,34 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
 			Set maximum number of finished RCU callbacks to
 			process in one batch.
 
+	rcutree.dump_tree=	[KNL]
+			Dump the structure of the rcu_node combining tree
+			out at early boot.  This is used for diagnostic
+			purposes, to verify correct tree setup.
+
+	rcutree.gp_cleanup_delay=	[KNL]
+			Set the number of jiffies to delay each step of
+			RCU grace-period cleanup.  This only has effect
+			when CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_CLEANUP is set.
+
 	rcutree.gp_init_delay=	[KNL]
 			Set the number of jiffies to delay each step of
 			RCU grace-period initialization.  This only has
-			effect when CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT is
-			set.
+			effect when CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_INIT
+			is set.
+
+	rcutree.gp_preinit_delay=	[KNL]
+			Set the number of jiffies to delay each step of
+			RCU grace-period pre-initialization, that is,
+			the propagation of recent CPU-hotplug changes up
+			the rcu_node combining tree.  This only has effect
+			when CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST_SLOW_PREINIT is set.
+
+	rcutree.rcu_fanout_exact= [KNL]
+			Disable autobalancing of the rcu_node combining
+			tree.  This is used by rcutorture, and might
+			possibly be useful for architectures having high
+			cache-to-cache transfer latencies.
 
 	rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf= [KNL]
 			Increase the number of CPUs assigned to each
@@ -3101,7 +3124,11 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
 			test, hence the "fake".
 
 	rcutorture.nreaders= [KNL]
-			Set number of RCU readers.
+			Set number of RCU readers.  The value -1 selects
+			N-1, where N is the number of CPUs.  A value
+			"n" less than -1 selects N-n-2, where N is again
+			the number of CPUs.  For example, -2 selects N
+			(the number of CPUs), -3 selects N+1, and so on.
 
 	rcutorture.object_debug= [KNL]
 			Enable debug-object double-call_rcu() testing.

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

@@ -617,16 +617,16 @@ case what's actually required is:
 However, stores are not speculated.  This means that ordering -is- provided
 for load-store control dependencies, as in the following example:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	if (q) {
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
 	}
 
-Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.
-That said, please note that ACCESS_ONCE() is not optional!  Without the
-ACCESS_ONCE(), might combine the load from 'a' with other loads from
-'a', and the store to 'b' with other stores to 'b', with possible highly
-counterintuitive effects on ordering.
+Control dependencies pair normally with other types of barriers.  That
+said, please note that READ_ONCE_CTRL() is not optional!  Without the
+READ_ONCE_CTRL(), the compiler might combine the load from 'a' with
+other loads from 'a', and the store to 'b' with other stores to 'b',
+with possible highly counterintuitive effects on ordering.
 
 Worse yet, if the compiler is able to prove (say) that the value of
 variable 'a' is always non-zero, it would be well within its rights
@@ -636,12 +636,15 @@ as follows:
 	q = a;
 	b = p;  /* BUG: Compiler and CPU can both reorder!!! */
 
-So don't leave out the ACCESS_ONCE().
+Finally, the READ_ONCE_CTRL() includes an smp_read_barrier_depends()
+that DEC Alpha needs in order to respect control depedencies.
+
+So don't leave out the READ_ONCE_CTRL().
 
 It is tempting to try to enforce ordering on identical stores on both
 branches of the "if" statement as follows:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	if (q) {
 		barrier();
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
@@ -655,7 +658,7 @@ branches of the "if" statement as follows:
 Unfortunately, current compilers will transform this as follows at high
 optimization levels:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	barrier();
 	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;  /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */
 	if (q) {
@@ -685,7 +688,7 @@ memory barriers, for example, smp_store_release():
 In contrast, without explicit memory barriers, two-legged-if control
 ordering is guaranteed only when the stores differ, for example:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	if (q) {
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
 		do_something();
@@ -694,14 +697,14 @@ ordering is guaranteed only when the stores differ, for example:
 		do_something_else();
 	}
 
-The initial ACCESS_ONCE() is still required to prevent the compiler from
-proving the value of 'a'.
+The initial READ_ONCE_CTRL() is still required to prevent the compiler
+from proving the value of 'a'.
 
 In addition, you need to be careful what you do with the local variable 'q',
 otherwise the compiler might be able to guess the value and again remove
 the needed conditional.  For example:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	if (q % MAX) {
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
 		do_something();
@@ -714,7 +717,7 @@ If MAX is defined to be 1, then the compiler knows that (q % MAX) is
 equal to zero, in which case the compiler is within its rights to
 transform the above code into the following:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
 	do_something_else();
 
@@ -725,7 +728,7 @@ is gone, and the barrier won't bring it back.  Therefore, if you are
 relying on this ordering, you should make sure that MAX is greater than
 one, perhaps as follows:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX <= 1); /* Order load from a with store to b. */
 	if (q % MAX) {
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p;
@@ -742,14 +745,15 @@ of the 'if' statement.
 You must also be careful not to rely too much on boolean short-circuit
 evaluation.  Consider this example:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	if (a || 1 > 0)
 		ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 1;
 
-Because the second condition is always true, the compiler can transform
-this example as following, defeating control dependency:
+Because the first condition cannot fault and the second condition is
+always true, the compiler can transform this example as following,
+defeating control dependency:
 
-	q = ACCESS_ONCE(a);
+	q = READ_ONCE_CTRL(a);
 	ACCESS_ONCE(b) = 1;
 
 This example underscores the need to ensure that the compiler cannot
@@ -762,8 +766,8 @@ demonstrated by two related examples, with the initial values of
 x and y both being zero:
 
 	CPU 0                     CPU 1
-	=====================     =====================
-	r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(x);      r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(y);
+	=======================   =======================
+	r1 = READ_ONCE_CTRL(x);   r2 = READ_ONCE_CTRL(y);
 	if (r1 > 0)               if (r2 > 0)
 	  ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1;       ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 1;
 
@@ -783,14 +787,21 @@ But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the above
 assertion can fail after the combined three-CPU example completes.  If you
 need the three-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need smp_mb()
 between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments,
-that is, just before or just after the "if" statements.
+that is, just before or just after the "if" statements.  Furthermore,
+the original two-CPU example is very fragile and should be avoided.
 
 These two examples are the LB and WWC litmus tests from this paper:
 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf and this
 site: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppcmem/index.html.
 
 In summary:
 
+  (*) Control dependencies must be headed by READ_ONCE_CTRL().
+      Or, as a much less preferable alternative, interpose
+      be headed by READ_ONCE() or an ACCESS_ONCE() read and must
+      have smp_read_barrier_depends() between this read and the
+      control-dependent write.
+
   (*) Control dependencies can order prior loads against later stores.
       However, they do -not- guarantee any other sort of ordering:
       Not prior loads against later loads, nor prior stores against
@@ -1784,10 +1795,9 @@ for each construct.  These operations all imply certain barriers:
 
      Memory operations issued before the ACQUIRE may be completed after
      the ACQUIRE operation has completed.  An smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
-     combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior loads against
-     subsequent loads and stores and also orders prior stores against
-     subsequent stores.  Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!  The
-     smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.
+     combined with a following ACQUIRE, orders prior stores against
+     subsequent loads and stores. Note that this is weaker than smp_mb()!
+     The smp_mb__before_spinlock() primitive is free on many architectures.
 
  (2) RELEASE operation implication:
 

arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h

@@ -89,5 +89,6 @@ do {									\
 
 #define smp_mb__before_atomic()     smp_mb()
 #define smp_mb__after_atomic()      smp_mb()
+#define smp_mb__before_spinlock()   smp_mb()
 
 #endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_BARRIER_H */